AS the dust settles on the new ministerial appointments at the Scottish Government it was rather fitting that opposition parties took the time to thank Shona Robinson for her dedication and achievements while serving as Health Secretary, with the First Minister commenting that Ms Robinson is leaving office having just agreed a final pay deal (9% over next three years) for health workers.
But it is the creation of the new senior ministerial posts of Cabinet Secretary for Social Security and Older People and Cabinet Secretary for Constitutional Relations that were particularly pleasing, a clear indication that the Scottish Government is recognising the importance of the devolved welfare powers coming to Holyrood and the shambles that is Brexit.
The devolved welfare powers will see Holyrood take control of 15% of all welfare spend in Scotland affecting more than 1.4 million people, so the creation of this senior ministerial post is fully justified. The current shambles that is the Brexit negotiations may see some very interesting constitutional issues arising as a result, and it would have been remiss of the First Minister not to have prepared the Scottish Government for such issues.
Catriona C Clark
Falkirk
SORRY to see the most successful Health Secretary in the UK exit her post. Her reasons are very understandable and everyone must surely wish her well in the future.
It was pleasing to see that her shadows in the Tory and LibDem parties were able to bury the political hatchets and give Shona Robison credit for building up NHS Scotland in very difficult circumstances.
Unfortunately the Scottish Labour Party managed to hit yet another low point with the petty statements made by their health spokesman Anas Sarwar and former leader Iain Gray.
Although there is no shortage of contenders in Scottish Labour, there really is no-one better qualified than Anas Sarwar to speak on the experience of failure in politics.
John Jamieson
South Queensferry
IVAN McKee states in Tuesday’s National that “Everyone agrees that we will be using Sterling on day one (of independence)” (People of Scotland should make decision on our future currency, June 26). Er, no, they don’t all agree. From day one of independence, Scotland must have a constitutional currency – that is, money issued by the state and not by the private banks – and all banking must be on a full reserve basis.
If we allow the private banking industry to become entrenched in an independent Scotland, then they will assume power as they have done in all of the developed nations and run the establishment for the benefit of themselves and the wealthy elite.
For any chance of social equality, the state must be in control of the issuing of currency.
Tony Perridge
Inverness
EARLY in 2015 before the European referendum I wrote a novel called No Tears for Destiny, predicting the UK would vote to leave Europe. I took a risk because the whole basis for the storyline was about a leave vote triggering an indyref2.
In my novel Westminster withholds consent to hold a referendum and declares the Yes result unlawful. This leads to a campaign by GCHQ to destabilise and dissolve Holyrood, impose martial law and imprison all the leaders of the Scottish Government.
Sound familiar? There are parallels between what happened in the real world with Catalonia and what happens to Scotland in my novel. When I wrote the book it seemed far-fetched, but the increasingly xenophobic and unpredictable Tories are already attacking the devolution settlement. The point I make is that England will never allow Scotland to be independent; it is far too valuable.
Mike Herd
Highland
WITH talk around indyref2 – witness Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp’s article yesterday on the possible future role of Keith Brown – the elephant in the room that is Westminster is seldom acknowledged (Brown’s new role to lead campaign signals vote is soon, June 28).
The toing and froing that culminated in the Edinburgh Agreement is unlikely to be seen again in the lifetime of either the current Scottish or United Kingdom governments.
Brexit will ultimately see off T May & Co, and the SNP is unlikely to find itself forming a government, either minority or majority, next time. Without an Edinburgh Agreement 2, any indyref2 will fail to get off the ground as a result of becoming bogged down in the courts, or through Unionist-run local authorities refusing to open polling places, or due to a Madrid-style reaction from London to any poll which it has not authorised.
Why then does the SNP not cut out the middle man and turn the next Scottish election into a de facto referendum? One single policy on the SNP ticket: majority of SNP MSPs results in appointment of Scottish Grand Committee to negotiate repeal of the Act of Union, with elections to indy Scottish Parliament to follow.
As for Westminster’s permission? Not required, thanks.
R Knight
Balfron
IT is high time that the SNP changed its name to something more suitable for the 21st century. No doubt the Scottish National Party was entirely appropriate as a name in the 1920s when the party was formed. Today, it is an embarrassment.
The connotations of the word “national” in contemporary global politics are unsavoury.
For inspiration for a new name, the imaginative world of Italian politics can give a lead. In addition to the Five Star Movement, there are parties named Italy of Values, Free Alternative, and Popular Construction, to mention only a very few. What’s in a name? Quite a lot, I would suggest.
A Reader
Lothian
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel